Bulletin Board
Rants, Raves, Interesting Science & Awful Puns
April 14, 2007

Seeing Through Global Warming

The Emperor Without The Politics


The climate change business has become so much an issue of ideology and politics, in which what is deemed to be fact is determined by the degree to which it suits a predetermined belief structure, than science, where belief is supposed to follow what can best be determined as fact, that little in the way of science is getting through to the public debate. As a help to cutting through all the exaggerations and nonsense engulfing the planet far more prolifically than any physical emissions from human activity ever could, it's interesting to note that two writers who in my opinion both display a clear insight and grasp of the real issues, one of distinctly right-leaning persuasions and the other of the left, both agree that the simplistic story as told by the mainstream makes no scientific sense.

Arthur Robinson is an American conservative in the original sense of the word, which meant belief in individual freedom, self-reliance, minimal interference by government at home, and minding one's own business abroad--before it got hijacked and associated with the fanaticism waging war around the world today. In Global Energy Rationing, Lew Rockwell Column, March 8, 2007, he stresses the benefits that industrial capitalism can bring to a world able to enjoy them wisely, and condemns the climate hysteria movement as a strategy by its opponents to create worldwide energy austerity and rationing on a scale that would dwarf the the devastation wrought to Third World populations by the banning of DDT.

Some extracts:

Their target was and is energy – in any form that is industrially robust. Their primary demons have been nuclear energy and hydrocarbon energy. Solar energy, biofuels, and wind energy will be acceptable to them only so long as they remain industrially impractical for the generation of large amounts of inexpensive energy.
The proponents of human-caused global warming are without humility and without interest in experimental information. They predict the weather 100 years in the future with unverified computer models and then state with absolute certainty that they must turn off half of humanity's energy supplies and heavily tax the remainder. This is neither science nor environmentalism. It is fraud.
World taxation, rationing, and shortages of energy will--assuming that political stability can be maintained--hurt primarily the poor, lower, and middle classes sufficiently to markedly increase their death rates. The upper classes within which the hysteria for global energy rationing has originated expect to maintain their own lifestyles with only minor inconvenience.
Lon Waters pointed me to Denis G. Rancourt, a Professor of Physics at the University of Ottowa, who argues in Global Warming: Truth or Dare?, Activist Teacher, February 27, 2007, that: (1) that global warming (climate change, climate chaos, etc.) will not become humankind’s greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more, (2) that global warming is presently nowhere near being the planet’s most deadly environmental scourge, and (3) that government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world. He further contends that there are strong societal, institutional, and psychological motivations for having constructed and for continuing to maintain the myth of a global warming dominant threat, which he describes in terms of the workings of the scientific profession and of the global corporate and finance network and its government shadows.

Some extracts:

The media are allowed to talk global warming because it does not threaten power in any significant way. Indeed, it deflects attention away from real world issues.
The required energy clearly comes from the sun, just as spring sunlight melts snow in temperate climates much more than the increase in air temperature ever could. More radiant energy must be deposited on the receding glaciers. Either there is more incident radiant energy or the glaciers are more able to absorb rather than reflect the incident radiation or both.
Somewhere First World middleclassers will need to abandon the lies that we live in democracies, that the corporate profit motive guarantees environmental protection, that servicing manufactured debt advances society, that corporate agri-business is the best way to feed people, that making a mess everywhere to serve share holders is the best way to generate well being, and that exploiting others is a good way to help them, not to mention that war is an acceptable method to bring justice and freedom to enslaved populations.

Full article at http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

I agree with both of them. Whether widespread industrial development is desirable, if capitalism, socialism, or something else is the better way to manage it, and how to distribute the resulting wealth are legitimate questions to ask. But they are social and political issues, and should be openly acknowledged and debated as such. Hiding behind fraudulent science and politicizing it into a new form of quasi-religious authority that can't be questioned isn't the way to go. The principal victim at the end of the day will be real science, which to a large degree is already happening. See, for example, MIT Professor of Meteorolgy Richard Lindzen, Global Warming: The Bogus Religion of Our Age, UK Daily Mail, March 8, 2007, or Nature Goes Against Science, UK The First Post, March 8, 2007

As a footnote, in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, Danish physicist Bjarne Andresen states that it isn't even meaningful to talk about a single "temperature" for a system this complex, which is all the time cooling in some places, warming in others, in patterns that constantly change. Temperature can only be defined for a "homogeneous system," which the climated most definitely is not. So to pontificate confidently about a 0.5 degree rise over a period of 100 years, and want to shut down half the world because of assured dires consequences from it, would seem to be somewhat . . . fanciful, at best. Article discussed in American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/is_there_an_average_global_tem_1.html

And finally, a list of readers sent me references to the BBC Channel 4 Documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, which has been causing a lot of feathers to fly, and asked me to post a link to it. Interestingly, every one of the Google links I was given seems to have been taken down--so what's going on here? But it is still accessible on the Channel 4 site at http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/

Comment by S. Fred Singer at http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/19/143626.shtml?s=us

(I admit that, not owning a TV, I haven't watched it myself. My main computer hasn't been able to access the Internet since Sheryl installed some software for a digital camera, and so until I finish Moon Flower--now in the final chapters--I'm reduced to a 10-year-old laptop that's s-l-o-w. And when, in addition, one is in western rural Ireland with only dialup, that's pretty daunting. Uninstalling the camera junk has obviously left something in there, but until the book's done I'm not inclined to fool with it.)

Content © The Estate of James P. Hogan, 1998-2014. All rights reserved.

Page URL: http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1093